What I meant by that is the initial argument by Everything_Raven (and the one you just mentioned) is "why are you bringing this non-football topic up during Super Bowl week?"

but, it's fairly clear also that Everything_Raven and others do not themselves support same sex marriage, so the question I posed was to see if their position on BA was mainly due to their own feelings on the issue, or discussing any non-football issue. You are right, there is no "pro-bullying" side, but it's still a non-football topic.

If you're going to have a problem with him bringing up "polarizing" topics, it would seem that you think Ravens players, in general, SHOULDN'T be vocal about those types of issues, PERIOD. If the issue is with him bringing up any non-football topics and making a big deal out of them, then I would assume if he made a big deal about anti-bullying, you'd also not be for it, because again, he'd be making a big focus of a non-football topic.

Just food for thought. Again, I'd have no problem with Matt Birk having an interview where he presents his views on keeping "traditional" marriage definitions. Even during Super Bowl week. "Championing" the issue is a subjective term, you really have no idea if he's talking about just making remarks on it or trying to do something outlandish.

01-26-2013, 09:41 AM

HoustonRaven

I have no issue with BA using his free time in this manner.

A while back, Sirdowski posted something linking to a book called "Ideas Have Consequences". It's a philosophical read and one it's main premises is that we've become a society that does not like unsettling thoughts. Keep in mind, it was written in the 40's and even then he warned about this new desire for folks to seek out "facts" that reaffirm their own beliefs rather than being challenged or seeking out ideas they don't agree with.

I do, however still believe that the harsh language / rhetoric from either side is exactly the wrong way to go about educating folks. This shouldn't become an us against them type of issue for either side. It's too important. It hardens people and thus, nobody ever changes.

Well said. 100% agree.

I know in the past I came off as a staunch biblical orthodoxist, but being honest with myself with regards to issues such as this one and many others in science, has led me to explore a more dynamc approach to assesing my worldview and not simply settle for any explanation that offers static answers to a dynamic world. I am currently studying Process Theology and am finding it has some very satisfying and interesting answers to these questions.

Quote:

I like the idea of people who push the idea envelope.

I agree. What really challenged me to change my way of thinking hit me when I was reading about process theology, and Alfred whitehead said, "the pure conservative is fighting aginst the essence of the universe."

01-26-2013, 10:06 AM

StingerNLG

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavenScallywag

If you're going to have a problem with him bringing up "polarizing" topics, it would seem that you think Ravens players, in general, SHOULDN'T be vocal about those types of issues, PERIOD. If the issue is with him bringing up any non-football topics and making a big deal out of them, then I would assume if he made a big deal about anti-bullying, you'd also not be for it, because again, he'd be making a big focus of a non-football topic.

I think you are confusing the issue with the venue. I have no problem with BA having an opinion on this. And if the NFL wants to have a specific conference on issues, or if they want to do a show I don't have to watch where players can debate social issues, great.

The Super Bowl is not that place.

Quote:

Just food for thought. Again, I'd have no problem with Matt Birk having an interview where he presents his views on keeping "traditional" marriage definitions. Even during Super Bowl week. "Championing" the issue is a subjective term, you really have no idea if he's talking about just making remarks on it or trying to do something outlandish.

Emailing someone right after AFCC and asking how he can harness the media at the Super Bowl sounds pretty straightforward to me.

I think you are confusing the issue with the venue. I have no problem with BA having an opinion on this. And if the NFL wants to have a specific conference on issues, or if they want to do a show I don't have to watch where players can debate social issues, great.

The Super Bowl is not that place.

Okay, and that goes right to the point, you would be more upset with him doing ANYTHING non-football at the Super Bowl.

If BA causes a spectacle at Media Week, I will be right on him for doing it.

Okay, and that goes right to the point, you would be more upset with him doing ANYTHING non-football at the Super Bowl.

If BA causes a spectacle at Media Week, I will be right on him for doing it.

More or less. Talk about the game. Talk about the Ravens. Talk about the 49'ers. I don't want my Super Bowl to be a PSA on politics, social issues, or anything like that. Football is a place where we can, and should be able to, get away from all that for a couple hours of a Sunday.

If BA wants to be on Meet the Press tomorrow, have at it! On NFL time, talk NFL Football.

More or less. Talk about the game. Talk about the Ravens. Talk about the 49'ers. I don't want my Super Bowl to be a PSA on politics, social issues, or anything like that. Football is a place where we can, and should be able to, get away from all that for a couple ours of a Sunday.

If BA wants to be on Meet the Press tomorrow, have at it! On NFL time, talk NFL Football.

no you rather them think its ok to call people bigots because of their religion. and you would rather them read a forum were people will lie and say that they said something that was never said, to try and support their own argument.

Finally getting back after being away for a few days.

Well, let's see.

Here is a minority. You don't want the members of that minority to be treated the same as everyone else is treated. You don't want them to have access to the specific medical, legal, and bureaucratic benefits and privileges that derive from being "married."

That's all fact.

In my opinion, that also makes you a bigot.

Lamenting that marriage shouldn't have privileges x, y and z is a dodge, because those privileges are too numerous and too deeply rooted to go anywhere. That conversation is just changing the subject to something less important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

I do, however still believe that the harsh language / rhetoric from either side is exactly the wrong way to go about educating folks. This shouldn't become an us against them type of issue for either side. It's too important. It hardens people and thus, nobody ever changes.

HR, you said yourself that you only came to appreciate the stakes in this debate when you encountered members of the LGBT community around Fells Point.

I imagine you look back, as a heterosexual man, across the years of your life and you can't believe the things you used to think about homosexuals. I know I've come a long way since my youth.

I feel like I would have benefited, as a young man, if decent, smart people had been vocal about what was right. I feel like, if I was 18 again and a Ravens fan and a young man who didn't really know anyone who was gay and out, and I was reading this message board, I would really benefit from seeing people draw a line in the sand and be very clear about what was right.

I don't know if you're complaining about my tone, but if you are, understand I'm not trying to persuade ER. I've tried to persuade people like him before and I might as well be talking to a tire. He won't change his mind.

But there are people out there - fewer, because this is in the politics subforum - who may be reading these words and nodding along and feeling the dawn begin to break.

ASB is *exactly* right. I have been accused many times, here and elsewhere, of being intolerant of other people on this issue because of their religion. That's just silly. I don't care *what* their religion is, and I won't stoop to debating matters of faith because faith has nothing to do with it.

Some dude who lives across town from me, whatever his religion or absence thereof, has no business telling me who I should be able to marry.

And as to BA's comments, good for him for leveraging his very small amount of fame for this cause for the one moment in his career when the cameras and microphones are rolling. Others have spent their fame on far less worthy causes. It's easy enough to tune him out; he's small potatoes compared to all the stars around him. Don't like it? Don't listen.

I know this conversation makes people uncomfortable, including people who agree with me. But it's important to get it out there. Getting it out there and making people confront their own prejudices is how we make this right. Not being silent and pretending nothing is wrong.

To be clear, no one believes that having faith makes you a bigot. Or even believing that a religious partnership is the exclusive domain of heterosexual couples.

Festivus and I, (if I can speak for him) are stating that a desire to impose that religious exclusivity to the secular concept of LEGAL marriage is a bigoted practice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by festivus

in myopinion, that also makes you a bigot.

Im not really sure why you have aligned yourself with this person in this discussion. I think that you are far more intelligent and from a secular view point you raise valid arguments. But i dont live or view my life secularly. So this is an exercise in futility if we are trying to come to an agreement as to wether gay marriage is right or wrong.

Now as for wether it is right or wrong for those of us that hold to Christian values to vote against it is a matter of personal opinion. i personally couldn't care less about voting to stop gay marriage. Could Not Care less! i dont agree with it but i am more concerned about the intents of a man's heart than anything else. Even if it was illegal these people would still have the same heart for it. Laws dont prohibit the hearts desire.

and as i said before i dont regard homosexuality to be any worst than any other activity deemed as sin.